You won't always crash your car if you drive while intoxicated, but that doesn't make it a good idea to drive drunk.
False equivalencies are never a good look. The reality? Folks have been playing games with conflict since time immemorial. Can a game of Monopoly cause strife? Sure, but that does not mean Monopoly is guaranteed to cause strife. The same goes for conflict in D&D--if you are playing with well-adjusted individuals who can have fun--the same kinds of folks you would be fine sitting down and playing cards, or any number of competitive games with--conflict is just another part of the game.
Maybe you have had bad experiences--perhaps with bullies; perhaps with emotionally fragile individuals who saw bullying where none existed. But you seem to be blaming the game for a problem that originated with the players--and are ignoring the reality that most people are capable of playing a game without forgetting they are playing a game.
I'm not blaming the game. I'm saying that this is a thing that the game is not intended to do and in my more than 25 years of playing the game has never succeeded in adding anything positive to the game. Also, it's rather hilarious that you attempt to accuse me of making a false equivalency fallacy and then immediately try to bring Monopoly into the argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The game is intended to tell stories; not every story has to go well, and not every group of heroes is always going to get along. Playing that out can lead to more more complex, dynamic stories--if your group is capable of telling those stories without causing problems. I have experienced that plenty of times in my many years of playing--enough times to know this is not a fluke. But I am also very careful to only play with folks who I trust to not be jerks, and who will mostly remember that a game is a game, whether that game is cards, Monopoly, D&D, or any of the other games we play--they are all just games, and games are there so we can hang out and have fun together.
Character conflict is not inherently bad, although it's best the dynamic be worked out between the players during session 0 or otherwise ahead of time. Actually fighting or otherwise harming other PC's is significantly messier and, while not absolutely toxic, is still best worked around imo. The basic combat system doesn't lend itself to stylized/cinematic fights you can really build a roleplay scene around, and the classes aren't balanced for it, so generally someone's gonna get stomped on.
Glad to see this discussion is still alive and well. I won't say anything though as I wouldn't want to risk biasing further commentary more than the post may already have.
People are, generally speaking, a lot less self-aware than they like to believe. Not just in D&D related matters, but in everything. Of course, by its very nature, it's self-blinding - people who aren't very self-aware often don't realise that they're not self-aware because you need some self-awareness to realise it. A lot of the tensions and frustrations that happen on this board happen because people lack self-awareness. They don't even realise how they're behaving.
The upshot is that a lot of people think they're going to be fine going into PvP, go into the situation and then get upset and start acting like a pratt. The worst thing is, they often don't even realise it, they think any problems that arise, if there are any, are due to other people.
Can PvP (as distinct from arena type fighting) work? Sure. It takes a lot of self-awareness and being quite chill about things though, and you won't know if it'll be fine until you're out the other side.
My experience is that it's not worth the gamble. Two incidents come to mind. The first was when I "stole" someone else's room for the night. Seeing as it didn't materially or permanently affect the other player's character in any way beyond saying where we slept that night, I thought it would just be funny... apparently they didn't think so. No permanent harm done but they had a bad evening. On that count alone, it wasn't worth it - even if everyone else thought the antics were hilarious.
The other was when I was DM. Had to PCs come to blows. I stopped the game, expressed my concern about PvP and that I wasn't of the opinion that this was a good idea. Both players, with smiles on their faces, insisted they were fine with it. I held up my hands and let them get on with it. It all went fine, the dice favoured one side and he explicitly KO'd (not killed) the other PC. The losing player promptly decided his character was dead and left the table to make another. He's never played D&D since. Interestingly, he's also the one who escalated it to PvP.
If PvP arose naturally from the story? I wouldn't let it resolve normally. They can mutually agree how the conflict resolves. No dice, no having a conclusion forced on them (either by DM or dice), they can just work with each other, player to player, to work out something that they're both happy with. People invest too much time and effort into their character to have it be safe territory to violate. It's a similar reason why Monopoly has a reputation for upset - a lot of time invested and ultimately decided by luck of the roll more than anything else - and there's a lot less time invested. Normally D&D is PvE and blame is much less diffuse, so it doesn't cause the same upset.
Can PvP work? Sure. It doesn't take much to turn it sour, even people who have shown to be able to handle it can have a bad day and have it cause major issues. A significant proportion of people aren't self-aware enough to genuinely be sure which camp they're in, so it's always going to be a gamble. Personally, I'm really not a fan of that gambling and it's not worth the risk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
What it ultimately comes down to is trust - do you trust your players to be cool about things, do you trust your DM to be able to handle this with grace and to fix any problems when they arise, and do you trust yourself, regardless of which category you are in, to act in an appropriate way
If any of those answers is “no” for whatever reason—a would-be bully, playing with strangers, an emotionally fragile player who just can’t handle conflict (and other players who are not able to insulate that one players from things which might upset them), players who cannot divorce self from character, etc.? Then, by all means, be careful with conflict.
But if the answer is yes to everything? You probably can let the story play out organically - you’ll get a better narrative and, even if there might be hiccups, folks you generally trust to be cool can also be trusted to get over themselves if a problem does arise. In a trusted group, you should be able to count on forgiveness rather than permission, and you likely need neither, since player-level spillover does not occur in the first place.
Now, let me make this very clear, I am only saying that some groups can get away with it—and that the existence of these groups shows it is not always a problem and that it can be handled in a manner which is not toxic.
But I am not saying every group can get away with conflict, I am not even saying a majority of groups can. The 27% who voted in a manner that indicated they did not see a problem with conflict are just as wrong as the 38% who ignore the fact that some groups can handle conflict in a way which is non-toxic.
That is why I voted for the “it depends” option—I don’t think conflict is necessarily a good thing either, it can be good or it can be bad, depending on your group, your story, and how much you trust one another.
I treat PVP fighting the same way I treat PVP theft, do what you want, but there will be consequences if you are caught (in-game) fighting with or stealing from most of my characters. Usually easily handled in a GOOD session 0.
A lot of the time in our campaigns we have characters in the party who fight, usually because two characters have very opposing views on things. I like doing this because I feel like it adds a bit more into the game, also makes it so there can be more stuff like arguments or dueling and stuff that happens during rests or just traveling.
You won't always crash your car if you drive while intoxicated, but that doesn't make it a good idea to drive drunk.
And in-party fighting won't always be toxic, though that doesn't mean it's generally a good idea. I agree that in-party fighting should be scarce, heavily moderated, and blocked at some tables.
I really don't grasp this analogy though, because drunk driving is inherently highly dangerous whereas in-party fighting isn't always mandated to be risky. So I think the issue arises not when we recognize the dangers of in-party fighting, but when we say that it's somehow always toxic on the premise that we haven't seen it work. I generally agree with you on "how toxic and destructive it can be for the game". But I would remind of the word can that you put there, because my point was the poll answer that it's always toxic despite sometimes being relatable is a blatant overgeneralization.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I think rendering a blanket opinion about intra-party conflict is ignoring underlying questions that are more instructive.
Can the involved players trust one another's motivations for pursuing the conflict, chiefly that it is not a proxy for an out-of-character disagreement? Is it happening because the involved players want to do it, or because one is pursuing it against the wishes of another? Is it sucking up time and attention or bleeding into unrelated activity in a way that makes the experience suffer for uninvolved players or the party as a whole? Is it actually one player's response to another's problem behavior, and thus a symptom of an entirely different issue?
Drama between characters is an often good or neutral plot point occurring in the game world and should be resolved there. Drama between players is a bad social problem occurring in the real world and should be resolved there. When it's both, the real world takes precedence. Figuring out when it's both is a judgment call; the involved players and the DM (and maybe the uninvolved players depending on the circumstance) should be on the lookout for it and raise the subject, maybe between sessions or maybe in the moment depending on how bad it's gotten. The more reasonable of people you're dealing with around the table, the more and "softer" options are available for dealing with this, but it very much depends on exactly what's going on and exactly who's involved.
People disagree that happens. Party members in movies also have disagreements and sometimes nearly come to blows, so it is not unreasonable to think PC's wouldn't. In most cases it is about someone assuming the lead and barking orders, where someone is question who made them their leader? Or it be someone who doesn't participate at any stage of an adventure.
When we were teens we'd handle it by having our characters attack each other, called PvP now. But I don't think you guys do that anymore. At the end of the day any Human Resource person will tell you that disagreements are healthy in teams, as long as they don't become toxic.
People disagree that happens. Party members in movies also have disagreements and sometimes nearly come to blows, so it is not unreasonable to think PC's wouldn't. In most cases it is about someone assuming the lead and barking orders, where someone is question who made them their leader? Or it be someone who doesn't participate at any stage of an adventure.
When we were teens we'd handle it by having our characters attack each other, called PvP now. But I don't think you guys do that anymore. At the end of the day any Human Resource person will tell you that disagreements are healthy in teams, as long as they don't become toxic.
The thing about movies is that a single hand is managing all the events towards a particular result.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
False equivalencies are never a good look. The reality? Folks have been playing games with conflict since time immemorial. Can a game of Monopoly cause strife? Sure, but that does not mean Monopoly is guaranteed to cause strife. The same goes for conflict in D&D--if you are playing with well-adjusted individuals who can have fun--the same kinds of folks you would be fine sitting down and playing cards, or any number of competitive games with--conflict is just another part of the game.
Maybe you have had bad experiences--perhaps with bullies; perhaps with emotionally fragile individuals who saw bullying where none existed. But you seem to be blaming the game for a problem that originated with the players--and are ignoring the reality that most people are capable of playing a game without forgetting they are playing a game.
I'm not blaming the game. I'm saying that this is a thing that the game is not intended to do and in my more than 25 years of playing the game has never succeeded in adding anything positive to the game. Also, it's rather hilarious that you attempt to accuse me of making a false equivalency fallacy and then immediately try to bring Monopoly into the argument.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The game is intended to tell stories; not every story has to go well, and not every group of heroes is always going to get along. Playing that out can lead to more more complex, dynamic stories--if your group is capable of telling those stories without causing problems. I have experienced that plenty of times in my many years of playing--enough times to know this is not a fluke. But I am also very careful to only play with folks who I trust to not be jerks, and who will mostly remember that a game is a game, whether that game is cards, Monopoly, D&D, or any of the other games we play--they are all just games, and games are there so we can hang out and have fun together.
Character conflict is not inherently bad, although it's best the dynamic be worked out between the players during session 0 or otherwise ahead of time. Actually fighting or otherwise harming other PC's is significantly messier and, while not absolutely toxic, is still best worked around imo. The basic combat system doesn't lend itself to stylized/cinematic fights you can really build a roleplay scene around, and the classes aren't balanced for it, so generally someone's gonna get stomped on.
Glad to see this discussion is still alive and well. I won't say anything though as I wouldn't want to risk biasing further commentary more than the post may already have.
Occassional Dungeon Master.
People are, generally speaking, a lot less self-aware than they like to believe. Not just in D&D related matters, but in everything. Of course, by its very nature, it's self-blinding - people who aren't very self-aware often don't realise that they're not self-aware because you need some self-awareness to realise it. A lot of the tensions and frustrations that happen on this board happen because people lack self-awareness. They don't even realise how they're behaving.
The upshot is that a lot of people think they're going to be fine going into PvP, go into the situation and then get upset and start acting like a pratt. The worst thing is, they often don't even realise it, they think any problems that arise, if there are any, are due to other people.
Can PvP (as distinct from arena type fighting) work? Sure. It takes a lot of self-awareness and being quite chill about things though, and you won't know if it'll be fine until you're out the other side.
My experience is that it's not worth the gamble. Two incidents come to mind. The first was when I "stole" someone else's room for the night. Seeing as it didn't materially or permanently affect the other player's character in any way beyond saying where we slept that night, I thought it would just be funny... apparently they didn't think so. No permanent harm done but they had a bad evening. On that count alone, it wasn't worth it - even if everyone else thought the antics were hilarious.
The other was when I was DM. Had to PCs come to blows. I stopped the game, expressed my concern about PvP and that I wasn't of the opinion that this was a good idea. Both players, with smiles on their faces, insisted they were fine with it. I held up my hands and let them get on with it. It all went fine, the dice favoured one side and he explicitly KO'd (not killed) the other PC. The losing player promptly decided his character was dead and left the table to make another. He's never played D&D since. Interestingly, he's also the one who escalated it to PvP.
If PvP arose naturally from the story? I wouldn't let it resolve normally. They can mutually agree how the conflict resolves. No dice, no having a conclusion forced on them (either by DM or dice), they can just work with each other, player to player, to work out something that they're both happy with. People invest too much time and effort into their character to have it be safe territory to violate. It's a similar reason why Monopoly has a reputation for upset - a lot of time invested and ultimately decided by luck of the roll more than anything else - and there's a lot less time invested. Normally D&D is PvE and blame is much less diffuse, so it doesn't cause the same upset.
Can PvP work? Sure. It doesn't take much to turn it sour, even people who have shown to be able to handle it can have a bad day and have it cause major issues. A significant proportion of people aren't self-aware enough to genuinely be sure which camp they're in, so it's always going to be a gamble. Personally, I'm really not a fan of that gambling and it's not worth the risk.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Monopoly is by definition PvP.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
What it ultimately comes down to is trust - do you trust your players to be cool about things, do you trust your DM to be able to handle this with grace and to fix any problems when they arise, and do you trust yourself, regardless of which category you are in, to act in an appropriate way
If any of those answers is “no” for whatever reason—a would-be bully, playing with strangers, an emotionally fragile player who just can’t handle conflict (and other players who are not able to insulate that one players from things which might upset them), players who cannot divorce self from character, etc.? Then, by all means, be careful with conflict.
But if the answer is yes to everything? You probably can let the story play out organically - you’ll get a better narrative and, even if there might be hiccups, folks you generally trust to be cool can also be trusted to get over themselves if a problem does arise. In a trusted group, you should be able to count on forgiveness rather than permission, and you likely need neither, since player-level spillover does not occur in the first place.
Now, let me make this very clear, I am only saying that some groups can get away with it—and that the existence of these groups shows it is not always a problem and that it can be handled in a manner which is not toxic.
But I am not saying every group can get away with conflict, I am not even saying a majority of groups can. The 27% who voted in a manner that indicated they did not see a problem with conflict are just as wrong as the 38% who ignore the fact that some groups can handle conflict in a way which is non-toxic.
That is why I voted for the “it depends” option—I don’t think conflict is necessarily a good thing either, it can be good or it can be bad, depending on your group, your story, and how much you trust one another.
I treat PVP fighting the same way I treat PVP theft, do what you want, but there will be consequences if you are caught (in-game) fighting with or stealing from most of my characters. Usually easily handled in a GOOD session 0.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
A lot of the time in our campaigns we have characters in the party who fight, usually because two characters have very opposing views on things. I like doing this because I feel like it adds a bit more into the game, also makes it so there can be more stuff like arguments or dueling and stuff that happens during rests or just traveling.
And in-party fighting won't always be toxic, though that doesn't mean it's generally a good idea. I agree that in-party fighting should be scarce, heavily moderated, and blocked at some tables.
I really don't grasp this analogy though, because drunk driving is inherently highly dangerous whereas in-party fighting isn't always mandated to be risky. So I think the issue arises not when we recognize the dangers of in-party fighting, but when we say that it's somehow always toxic on the premise that we haven't seen it work. I generally agree with you on "how toxic and destructive it can be for the game". But I would remind of the word can that you put there, because my point was the poll answer that it's always toxic despite sometimes being relatable is a blatant overgeneralization.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I think rendering a blanket opinion about intra-party conflict is ignoring underlying questions that are more instructive.
Can the involved players trust one another's motivations for pursuing the conflict, chiefly that it is not a proxy for an out-of-character disagreement? Is it happening because the involved players want to do it, or because one is pursuing it against the wishes of another? Is it sucking up time and attention or bleeding into unrelated activity in a way that makes the experience suffer for uninvolved players or the party as a whole? Is it actually one player's response to another's problem behavior, and thus a symptom of an entirely different issue?
Drama between characters is an often good or neutral plot point occurring in the game world and should be resolved there. Drama between players is a bad social problem occurring in the real world and should be resolved there. When it's both, the real world takes precedence. Figuring out when it's both is a judgment call; the involved players and the DM (and maybe the uninvolved players depending on the circumstance) should be on the lookout for it and raise the subject, maybe between sessions or maybe in the moment depending on how bad it's gotten. The more reasonable of people you're dealing with around the table, the more and "softer" options are available for dealing with this, but it very much depends on exactly what's going on and exactly who's involved.
Medium humanoid (human), lawful neutral
People disagree that happens. Party members in movies also have disagreements and sometimes nearly come to blows, so it is not unreasonable to think PC's wouldn't. In most cases it is about someone assuming the lead and barking orders, where someone is question who made them their leader? Or it be someone who doesn't participate at any stage of an adventure.
When we were teens we'd handle it by having our characters attack each other, called PvP now. But I don't think you guys do that anymore. At the end of the day any Human Resource person will tell you that disagreements are healthy in teams, as long as they don't become toxic.
The thing about movies is that a single hand is managing all the events towards a particular result.